@eefiSabHKS: 32 years being Hungarian might be not enough for me to learn the "Hungarian mind" perhaps. I would be glad if we were outwit, outsmart, and outperform for example those who will take away the private pension funds, and who take away my chance to select the Hungarian media what I like.

I hope we will be able to outperform the regulation that I have to register my own private blog to the Media Authority according the new regulation. I hope I will be able to learn to read in the lines of the news, as they did my parents and teachers in the Communism as in the seek of balanced media we will be end up in the same restriction we had that time.

There were a political joke from that time: "What is the difference between US and Hungary? In Hungary you have the freedom to express your own opinion. In US you have the freedom after you expressed your opinion."

Well, well, well. When are you "well-intended???", attention seeking,
somewhat/or not educated, professional or not, opinion forming
heros going to learn something very simple about the
"Hungarian mind?
You can falsely accuse and cheat and rob a nation as it happenned
over and over again, but you will never prevail!
why? Because they outwit, outsmart and outperform you at every
aspect. VIVA HUNGARIA

Something a bit less related but might help to put some details on the situation.

A few years back in 2006 after the elections but before the infamous speech of Ferenc Gyurcsany I was listening a good radio program.

According to the program there were plans on structural changes in the government - which were left alone after in the Autumn. Basically it would be an aim to create a more static bureaucracy - one that could be survive the changes of parties.

Today with each elections when a different party wins would be a huge change in high ranks in any Office of the State (and as now there was in lower ranks). The Head of an Office (minister) traditionally in the last 20 years were a person who`s aim was to get as much money to his Office as he gain and he was racing against his own cabinet members. The Office itself "ideally" was absolute loyal to the minister itself.

The plan was to reverse this mechanism, where the Offices would have a "traditional" tasks and spending routes and where the new government`s newly appointed minister would be a force of the cabinet to push through the program of the government. Sadly in Hungary we never developed an independent bureaucracy, it is always linked more or less to the parties (now more). Obviously this system does not selective on the professional level but rather on loyalty.

@hunnic species: Read the (Hungarian) Constitution please, and the European Union basic values. If you finished come back and tell me what you saw there. It might be interesting experience, honestly. Just give a try please :).

NOT, this act isn't "a shameful for hungarians", this is the dirty liar.
In this comments came from the very little minorití of hungarian citizens - who AREN'T HUNGARIAN NATIONALITY individual identidófical persons!!!

They are post-communists and extreme liberals loosers,

THEY, who have suffered a huge electoral defeats, a direct purpose of Healthy-referendum, the European Parliament representing voting and the choice of a national parliamentary election (68% + 12% / 17%), and local elections (3 October) an avalanche.

These minimal, failed groups are in their the TACTICS called to Western newspapers on the left ear for the appearance of articles against the legitimate national-conservative government of Hungary, which will conclude the sociopathic post-communists in the dirty attacks, AGAINST the Hungarian homeland and the interests of the nation - mainly Jewish- destructive ambitions. One tool for the media.

This attitude in the criminal studies in Hungary is the "TREASON",
"Infedility against the homeland", and very hard penalisations give for this antisocial, anti-national crimes!

I'm sorry, but The Economist is in favor of the old totalitarian communists,
and you are against the atlantist, conservative, democratic, legitimate government of HUNGARIAN NATIONAL! In favor of criminals.

NOT, this act isn't "a shameful for hungarians", this is the dirty liar.
In this comments came from the very little minorití of hungarian citizens - who AREN'T HUNGARIAN NATIONALITY individual identidófical persons!!!

They are post-communists and extreme liberals loosers,

THEY, who have suffered a huge electoral defeats, a direct purpose of Healthy-referendum, the European Parliament representing voting and the choice of a national parliamentary election (68% + 12% / 17%), and local elections (3 October) an avalanche.

These minimal, failed groups are in their the TACTICS called to Western newspapers on the left ear for the appearance of articles against the legitimate national-conservative government of Hungary, which will conclude the sociopathic post-communists in the dirty attacks, AGAINST the Hungarian homeland and the interests of the nation - mainly Jewish- destructive ambitions. One tool for the media.

This attitude in the criminal studies in Hungary is the "TREASON",
"Infedility against the homeland", and very hard penalisations give for this antisocial, anti-national crimes!

I'm sorry, but The Economist is in favor of the old totalitarian communists,
and you are against the atlantist, conservative, democratic, legitimate government of HUNGARIAN NATIONAL! In favor of criminals.

@Grandfather VIII: I read an interesting article about the communication of the Hungarian government.

These communication problems are one of the side effect of the governance of the Fidesz. Important changes are made by individual MP's of the party, rather than the government leading by the ministers of the field. And though, the Fidesz is effective to vote any such initiative - there are strict internal rules punishing the missed votes and perhaps even the voting out.

These politics is great to avoiding the debates with opposition parties, but it means also that the important programs are less debated and passes without some serious preparation.

Also as this media law is passed by some individual MP's it is unsure who is responsible to defend it inside the party/government. Is it one of the Offices (miniszterium)or the party`s communication branch?

Obviously it is not the Foreign Office`s responsibility, yet they are the one to explain now to outside world without a serious professional support.

I do think personally this new regulation as a whole is beyond any defence, but it would be nice to see actual debates and communications between the government and those who raises a concern (like we have here).

The only problem with the English translation is that paragraphs 207-228 (referring to transitional provisions, repealed legislation and amended legislation) are not translated yet. However, according to todays' journal articles (origo.hu, index.hu), none of these paragraphs seems to harm the freedom of the press.

Furthermore, the European Commission has to use its own transition in every cases.

As Spectator46 points out, the translation made available by the government yesterday is misleading. Several Hungarian news outlets pointed out that the text is not the media law passed on December 21 but its less specific precursos, the so-called "media constitution" passed in November. The European Council has already indicated that instead of using the translation released by the Hungarian government it will evaluate the media law on the basis of a complete in-house translation.

It is entertaining to read comments from Politically Correct red fascists who decry any attempt to right the wrongs, socialist imposed on Hungary. For Bill Emmott to suggest expulsion from EU people who for 50 years fought soviet despotism, is revolting.

The article: "The outsiders 'lack in-depth knowledge' of the new law and are a 'collection of unfounded, at times outright absurd accusations'".

Well, it seems the Hungarian government doesn't like the taste of its own medicine. I remember that it was merrily spreading a "collection of unfounded, at times outright absurd accusations" too when Slovakia passed it's language law a year earlier.

Well, an accusation against the new law was that there will not be enough time for the media to prepare for the new regulation. The 3 and 6 months grace period for the new rules contained by Article 216, section 4 may also respond to this problem.

I think every comprehensive regulation has to modify a lot of other acts in order to harmonize the legal system. Which of them is problematic?

Earlier I contributed the official translation of the new Hungarian media law.https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B0r7B...
PLEASE NOTE, THIS TRANSLATION DOES NOT INCLUDE A SERIES OF IMPORTANT CLAUSES FOLLOWING PARA 207; incl. postponement of the transfer deadline of digital broadcasting as per current EU directives, a series of modifications of other laws, interim regulations, postponement(para 216) of the implementation of penalty clauses until Hungarian EU presidency will have been over (!) etc. Tricky, I dare say...

Section 5 of Article 134 contains that "The precise amount of frequency charges and fees payable for the booking and use of identifiers shall be regulated by a government decree."

Article 229 replaces the world "Government" with "President of the National Media Aand Infocommunications Authority".

This is the only article entering into force only "on the day when the provision of the Constitution granting regulatory rights to the President of the National Media Aand Infocommunications Authority."

I could not find any other paragraph authorizing the president to issue decrees.

Newsreader60:
Perhaps the defeated parties organised a conspiracy to mislead the whole world. I don't know -- they are politicians, they may do that.
What has it got to do with what is written in the Media Law or my comment? Absolutely nothing.

Newsreader60:
you sound like an employee of the Media Council. Anyway, what the heck does all this have to do with the previous government? This is a good example of the clever and dishonest communication strategy I mentioned. Even if they burned people alive it has nothing to do with the present law. Nothing.
Kaiser Franz Josef, another previous leader had sex with actresses on the corridors of his palace. Then what?
Your job seems difficult.

@ Grandfather VIII:
Thanks for pointing that out. That's good to know. However, Paragraph 5 of Article 181 still contains a worrisome provision that leaves way too much at the discretion of the Media Authority. I mean this: "Should the Authority establish that the media service provider violated the obligation of balanced commmunication, the media service provider shall broadcast or publish the decision passed by the authority or the notice defined in the decision without any comment thereon--as provided for in the decision of the authority--in the manner and at the time specified by the Authority or shall provide an opportunity for the applicant to make his viewpoint known." The objectionable bit is "in the manner and at the time specified by the Authority." This leaves plenty of room for abuse and intimidation. If the media service provider decides to take the other opion and "provide an opportunity for the applicant to make his viewpoint known," what counts as fulfillment of this requirement? Is that up to the Authority as well?

Article 181 regulates the proceeding against those breaching the requirement of balanced communication. In this Article, there is no other sanction mentioned except for that the media service provider can be obliged to publish or broadcast the decision of the Authority.

Paragraph 5 of Article 181 contains also explicitely that "no legal consequences as defined in Articles 186-187 may be applied against the breaching entity."